Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Swen]

His videos are full of furry thumbnails and anime weeb shit.

His opinion is as valuable as Ontopoly's.

 

[Harthwain]

We don't really disagree in practice, but I think that such things should be settled at the table rather than through a dismissal of the canonicity of such works. Pedantic players should stick with pedantic DMs, non-pedantic ones with non-pedantic DMs.

Thing is - this is the kind of response you usually get when you disagree with someone at the table (be it a board game or an RPG). Next best thing you can do - if you are unable to reach an agreement yourselves - is to settle a dispute by asking question to the creator.

Here I disagree with you since such a statement negatively impacts the development of the expanded universe of a particular setting. If the books aren't canon, then there's no reason for the various writers to strive to maintain lore consistency across them (ergo this negatively impacts the enjoyment of the setting for the lorefags, whether they are DMs or regular players).

You are mixing up tabletop gaming with official "D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books". The latter are obligated to "maintain lore consistency", while private games in the setting are essentially fan fiction.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If you're not willing to learn about the setting then pick one that doesn't have so much lore, seems pretty simple to me

 

[Grunker]

What a shit video. "You shouldn't use rolls but deterministic outcomes because I don't like failing". How the fuck can any self-respecting Codexer eat that terrible narrative

He even praises XCOM's terrible non-randomized dice roller, which tells you two things: 1) That his self-proclaimed "veterancy" of XCOM happened on lower difficulty levels where the dice roller makes up for bad rolls, 2) That he is a pussy.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What a shit video. "You shouldn't use rolls but deterministic outcomes because I don't like failing". How the fuck can any self-respecting Codexer eat that terrible narrative

something something savescummers are ruining RPGs and the codex refuses to admit it because they love cheating something something

 

[Grunker]

What a shit video. "You shouldn't use rolls but deterministic outcomes because I don't like failing". How the fuck can any self-respecting Codexer eat that terrible narrative

something something savescummers are ruining RPGs and the codex refuses to admit it because they love cheating something something

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/savegame-limitations.139521/#post-7418690

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What a shit video. "You shouldn't use rolls but deterministic outcomes because I don't like failing". How the fuck can any self-respecting Codexer eat that terrible narrative

something something savescummers are ruining RPGs and the codex refuses to admit it because they love cheating something something

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/savegame-limitations.139521/#post-7418690

"designers designing their game around savescumming is fine because I am a savescummer"
yes, I know that's the popular position on the codex.

 

[eli]

His videos are full of furry thumbnails and anime weeb shit.

His opinion is as valuable as Ontopoly's.

stop reflecting.

 

[Harthwain]

What a shit video. "You shouldn't use rolls but deterministic outcomes because I don't like failing". How the fuck can any self-respecting Codexer eat that terrible narrative

lukaszek

 

[Grunker]

pls dont

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Video severely out of date.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

We don't really disagree in practice, but I think that such things should be settled at the table rather than through a dismissal of the canonicity of such works. Pedantic players should stick with pedantic DMs, non-pedantic ones with non-pedantic DMs.

Thing is - this is the kind of response you usually get when you disagree with someone at the table (be it a board game or an RPG). Next best thing you can do - if you are unable to reach an agreement yourselves - is to settle a dispute by asking question to the creator.

That's why you set up ground rules in advance, my man. And if players can't stick by them afterwards, they're just not made out for your group.

You are mixing up tabletop gaming with official "D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books". The latter are obligated to "maintain lore consistency", while private games in the setting are essentially fan fiction.

They are obligated to maintain lore consistency because they are created with the rest of the canon in mind. If there's no canon beyond the rulebook and the DM/player guides (as one previous poster had proposed as an alternative to an extended canon that can lead to pedantic practices), there's no incentive for consistency.

As for your other point, you misunderstood me. I am talking about the canonicity of the world building by the DM, not of the narrative that takes place therein. Nobody forces a group to follow the canon religiously, but that's as legitimate of an option as any. If you want to modify the lore here and there for your own purposes, it's your choice as a roleplaying group; you shouldn't demand that the canon is made poorer as to avoid contradicting the canon with your homebrew (since, to reemphasize, nobody is forcing you to stick by it).

 

[lukaszek]

What a shit video. "You shouldn't use rolls but deterministic outcomes because I don't like failing". How the fuck can any self-respecting Codexer eat that terrible narrative

lukaszek

not sure how to tackle that one using logic, I care not about respect

 

[Swen]

His videos are full of furry thumbnails and anime weeb shit.

His opinion is as valuable as Ontopoly's.

stop reflecting.

 

[Thonius]

His videos are full of furry thumbnails and anime weeb shit.

His opinion is as valuable as Ontopoly's.

stop reflecting.

Kids in Africa :
Anyhow pretty sure there was an option for loaded dices in bg3 and static rolls... right?

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Kids in Africa :
Anyhow pretty sure there was an option for loaded dices in bg3 and static rolls... right?

There is, but it's for tossers.

 

[zapotec]

Forgotten realms is much better than theme-park golarion

 

[Reinhardt]

Can I play as a Dhampir Wizard in path to become a Lich on BG3 and cast really nasty spells?

Fuck, stop trying to sell me BG3 so hard, Victor.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Forgotten realms is much better than theme-park golarion

golarion is just dollar store forgotten realms

 

[Ontopoly]

Can I play as a Dhampir Wizard in path to become a Lich on BG3 and cast really nasty spells?

Fuck, stop trying to sell me BG3 so hard, Victor.

Your taking pride in your Game for not having interesting options? Okay...

 

[Reinhardt]

Human barbarian is an interesting option, some vampire in a dress - no.

 

[Grunker]

Wizard

cool

Lich

supercool

Dhampir

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Does BG3 will have any kind of free exploration, like walking on the map and visiting various locations or it is a narrow corridor like DOS games?

 

[Larianshill]

Remember when about 50 pages ago, Victor said he would no longer post in this thread?

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I've been thinking about the issue with the current reaction system in the game for a while, the fact that Larian doesn't want interruptions/pop-ups because they consider it "disruptive to the continuity of the action" or something (which is a bit bizarre in a turn-based game where the alternative at interjecting the combat with your actions is... to watch NPCs move on their own for a while, if you ask me).

I've came to the conclusion that this is probably a matter of presentation more than mechanics for Larian. To be more explicit, I think that what they think is more or less: if we are going to implement reactions, they need to look "sleek and cinematic" in line with the rest of the game rather than just being a crude and unappealing "YES OR NO" pop-up over-impressed on the screen on a regular basis, like in Solasta.

I'm honestly not sure how I'd solve this. I've been trying to imagine some compromising ways they can give the players reaction in a more involved manner and "make it look good for the casual player", so to speak.
A very quick camera close-up and slow down before prompting you for confirmation? Offering a short time window like a QTE rather than literally pausing the game?
I'm not really sure what could work without being an even worse problem than the half-baked automated reactions we have now.

I've been mostly thinking about how XCOM 2, which is probably the current pinnacle of "triple A production value" when it comes to a turn-based tactical, would manage this.
That game has ONE type of reaction that is not automated, and it's a skirmisher skill that simply gives you a "micro-turn inside the enemy turn" instead of an ordinary automated overwatch. But even that is not an exact match, because that's about doing whatever you want with that action, while reactions in D&D are about confirming a specific type of attack on a predefined target.
And then when I was voicing my doubts on the official forum someone suggested as reference the "Breach mechanic" in Chimera Squad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UirMOn9RpXo&t=44s (0:44 if the timestamp doesn't work for some reason).

You know what? It could actually work as a compromise.
Zoom-in with slow-mo on the enemy doing his thing (moving away for AoO, casting for counter-spell, etc), on the player side offer something intuitive like "Left click to confirm your reaction, right click to skip it", make the whole thing quick and snappy enough to not be overly tedious over multiple times.
We would get what we want, which is some more involved reaction system that goes beyond an automated response with a toggle, and Larian could salvage the pretense of maintaining a sleek, mostly-seamless cinematic presentation without those "pesky text pop-up for nerds".

P.S. I know some of you autistics would suggest to just disable all animations, period, replace 3D models with 2D portraits and increase the speed of everything 10X, but let's be fucking real, please.